4/25/1988MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
April 25, 1988
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, by Mayor Swanson on
Monday, April 25, 1988, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock,
Mayor Swanson
ABSENT: Councilman Heinsheimer (excused)
Councilman Pernell (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager
Michael Jenkins City Attorney
Betty Volkert Deputy City Clerk
Chief Ray Brunstrom L. A. Co. Fire Dept.
Capt. Dennis Gillard Sheriff's Department
Ann Johnson Los Angeles Times
Anne La Jeunesse Palos Verdes News
Douglas McHattie South Bay Engineering
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Rooney Observers
Miss Sarah Rooney Observer
Mr. Warren Sweetnam Observer
Dr. & Mrs. Adesko Residents
Dr. Dave Basque
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Brogdon
Mr. Donald Gales
Mr. Paul Grubs
Mr. Roger Hawkins
Mr. & Mrs. Lee Hutchinson
Mr. & Mrs. Ikezawa
Mr. & Mrs. Liu
Mrs. Cathy Manning
Mr. Wilton Margrave
Mr. & Mrs. Garth Moore
Mr. Carl Price
Mrs. Betsy Raine
Mr. Rod Rodriguez
Dr. Paul Rubenstein
Mr. Ping Shu
Mr. Bill Stringfellow
Mrs. Shirley Tyndall
Mr. Ron Warmbier
Mr. & Mrs. Chung Yu
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that the items on the Consent
Calendar be approved as presented. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a regular meeting held on April 11, 1988, and
an adjourned meeting held. on April 13, 1988, were approved and
accepted as presented.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 2812 through 2845, in the amount of $31,074.39,
were approved for payment from the General Fund.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The Financial Statement "for March, 1988, was approved and
accepted as presented.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
SB 2287: BUSINESS INVENTORY EXEMPTION
The, City Manager explained that the purpose of Senate Bill
2287, introduced by Senator Vuich, is to restore to special districts
throughout the State of California revenues lost as a result of the
adoption of legislation immediately subsequent to the passage of
Proposition 13. One of the major financing sources for special
districts was Business Inventory Exemption Subvention. This revenue
source provided a significant amount of revenue for the Los Angeles
County Fire Protection District, which is a special district.
This legislation seeks to restore Business Inventory Exemption
revenues to special districts throughout the State. The Fire
co Department has asked that the City Council review this legislation
r- and, if in favor, that the Council indicate their support by means of
Lo a letter to the State Senate as well as to the Assembly and to the
Governor.
m It was staff's recommendation that the City Council express
Q their support of this legislation, to assist the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department in restoring a significant amount of revenue
to its revenue sources.
The Mayor asked if this would have a positive impact on the
services to the community. The City Manager stated that it would
have a positive impact in the sense that in the future the district
would not be in a position of having to remove from its current
expenditure levels, this amount of revenue, thereby necessitating a
cut back in services.
Mayor Swanson entertained a motion in support of SB 2287.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock so moved. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
BUILDING. ZONING. PLANNING. AND SUBDIVISION PROCEDURE CHARTS
The City Manager requested that this matter be continued to
the next regular meeting of the City Council. He stated that he had
received additional comments that he wants to incorporate into the
charts. Thus, this matter was held on the agenda.
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
The, City Manager explained that over the past several months
the Council and staff have discussed the status of the Environmental
Quality Board, in terms of it continuing to function as a City
commission.
As indicated in a report by staff, many, if not all, of the
responsibilities that the Environmental Quality Board have are, in
many cases, performed by the Planning Commission, thus, in many ways,
rendering the Environmental Quality Board a redundant body.
Therefore, staff recommended that the City Council consider
repealing the legislation that created the Environmental Quality
Board. If the City Council so desires, staff would return at a
future date with an appropriate ordinance that would accomplish
this. However, if the City Council would like to continue with the
Environmental Quality Board, staff asked to be informed of this so
that the necessary actions could be taken.
Mayor Swanson asked Mayor Pro Tem Murdock for her opinion
regarding this matter. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock commented that although
it is valuable to have various opportunities for members of the
community to serve in varying capacities, no one likes to spend time
on something that is redundant. If the concerns of the California
Environmental Quality Act are being addressed by the Planning
2
120
Commission, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing to have
a board that serves no purpose. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed
with Mayor Pro Tem Murdock.
The City Manager explained that the functions that are
required to be performed under state law are performed by the
Planning Commission.
There being no objections, the Mayor ordered that staff return
to the Council with the appropriate legislation that would repeal the'
Environmental Quality Board.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES:
L. A. Co. Sanitation District - Recvclina Proaram
The City Manager reported on activities of the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts. Recently, the Districts considered the
formulation of a plan that would make accumulated surcharge monies
available to individual cities, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00
for the purpose of developing a residential recycling implementation
plan. The Districts are proposing this in anticipation of the State
mandating these plans throughout the State of California. If the
State of California were to mandate a recycling plan and if a City
chose not to participate in a recycling program, a charge of $2.00
per ton of refuse collection would be assessed in the way of a fine,
to the jurisdictions that do not abide by the legislation. The City
Manager explained that, at the present time, the County Sanitation
Districts have not adopted this program, and this matter is simply
being reported for informational purposes only.
The Mayor reported that the Board of Directors of the County
Sanitation District voted, at their last meeting, to approve, in
concept, the distribution of up to $5,000.00 to individual cities, if
they apply for it, to be used for development of a recycling plan.
Mayor Swanson suggested waiting to see what legislation is ultimately
adopted by the State. If, indeed, the legislation is as punitive as
it was designed to be and if it were to pass, then, the City would
have no choice but to put a plan into place since the penalty that
would be imposed is quite severe and would continue until such time
as the municipality were to implement a recycling program,
afterwhich, the money would be returned except for all the
administrative costs on the part of the State, which would be
retained. The Mayor suggested that the Council keep an eye on the
progress of the legislation and consider the possibility of having a
pilot program.
BFI Aareement
The City Manager reported, that staff has been discussing the
current agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries for refuse
collection, and the possible extension of the agreement on a
multi-year basis. The City Manager stated that the purpose for
bringing this matter to the Council's attention is that a neighboring
city recently completed a Request for Proposal process for
residential refuse collection. As a result of that process, the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes actually experienced a rate decrease. For
that reason, this is being reported to the City Council and staff
asked for direction regarding this matter.
COUNCILMAN PERNELL ARRIVED AT THE MEETING.
The City Manager cautioned that, should the Council decide to
proceed with the Request for Proposal process, the Council take into
consideration the transition time from one company to another. The
service provided to the City of Rolling Hills is very different from
all the other cities, which have curbside service.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock suggested that the City proceed with a
Request for Proposal process and Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock explained that, although the service has been
fine, the Council has an obligation, under the circumstances and
given the cost of the expenditure, to look out for the welfare of the
- 3 -
C
-11 C) -11
141
residents. Thishasbeen a long standing contract and perhaps things
have changed. There certainly would be nothing that would preclude
BFI from submitting a bid.
The Mayor invited comments from the audience regarding this
matter, however, there were none.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that the City proceed with a
Request for Proposal for refuse collection. Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion.
Councilman Pernell apologized for his late arrival, and asked
for a brief explanation of the reasons for proceeding with a Request
for Proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock explained that it appears there would be
a substantial rate increase if the City continues service with BFI.
It was Mayor Pro Tem Murdock's feeling that there would be no way of
making a value judgement as to whether the proposed rate increase
would be fair or not without getting competitive bids.
Councilman Pernell stated that, from past experience, the
determining factor as to whether or not a refuse collection company
could adequately service the City was the type of vehicle used.
The City Manager explained that the purpose of the RFP would
be to obtain competitive bids for the refuse collection franchise.
The City Council would retain the perogative to select a firm based
on the lowest responsible bid, which allows the Council to evaluate
factors other than the rate. The advantage of proceeding with a
Request for Proposal, as seen in other neighboring cities, is that it
could provide a more advantageous cost picture for the City.
Councilman Pernell asked when the current contract with BFI
would expire. The City Manager explained that the contract would
expire on September 1, 1988; therefore, the RFP would be put out
immediately.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh confirmed with the City Manager that
BFI has never actually submitted a bid for refuse collection in the
City of Rolling Hills, due to the fact that BFI bought out the
previous company that was providing service and simply rolled over
the contract, absorbing the remaining three years of the contract
that was held by the previous company.
Councilman Pernell asked the city Manager if the
representatives from BFI appear to be in a negotiating posture, and
the City Manager replied that BFI is willing to negotiate. The
proposed rate increase is a range between 10% and 17%, within which
the City could negotiate.
The Mayor verified with the City Manager that the negotiations
are not at a standstill, and, also, that proceeding with a RFP would
not impede the negotiations. However, the City Manager stated that
the RFP would take precedence over any further negotiations; he would
not continue to negotiate at the same time that there was a RFP out.
Councilman Pernell remarked that that is exactly the point,
i.e., negotiations would come to a halt.
Councilman Pernell suggested that the City Manager continue
negotiations with the representatives from BFI. It was Councilman
Pernell's feeling that there is a certain advantage to having a
long-term association and that the Council should explore that
advantage before proceeding down another path.
Mayor Swanson stated that Councilman Pernell had a valid
argument, however, another concern of the Council's is whether or not
the City can get the same service for less.
- 4 -
Councilman Pernell offered a motion to postpone action,
pending further negotiations by either a Council Sub -committee of the
City Manager with the representatives for BFI. Councilman Pernell
explained that if a new company were to provide service to the
community it would require a learning process and a honeymoon period
which could be disruptive to the community. Councilman Pernell felt
it would be advantageous to continue negotiations with the City's
current refuse collection company.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock asked Councilman Pernell if he would _
consider a time limit on the postponement. Councilman Pernell stated
that he felt a month would be sufficient. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock said
that she felt it shouldn't extend any longer than a month because
then the time frame for proceeding with a Request for Proposal
becomes difficult.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock also asked the City Manager if there
might be some way of obtaining comparative prices without going to a
RFP to determine, in the negotiations with BFI, whether or not BFI's
rates are in line with other companies.
The City Manager commented that he thought there would be a
mechanism for obtaining such information since this is a highly
competitive industry.
Councilman Pernell said that, as part of the negotiating
process, staff should determine what else is available without going
to a formal RFP.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock seconded Councilman Pernell's motion
with the stipulation that.it be limited to one month, not to go past
the second Council meeting in May. The motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
Mayor Swanson announced that the City Clerk would administer
the Oath of Office to Councilman Pernell, however, Councilman
Heinsheimer was absent and, therefore, the Oath of Office would be
administered to Councilman Heinsheimer at a subsequent meeting.
The City Clerk, Mr. Belanger, administered the Oath of Office
to Councilman Pernell. Mayor Swanson congratulated Councilman
Pernell, and commented that he ran for re-election uncontested which
is usually an indication of a job well-done.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPEAL OF ZONING CASE NO.355. YU-PING LIU. 39 CREST ROAD WEST
Mayor Swanson announced that Zoning Case No. 355 is a request
by Yu -Ping Liu for a Conditional Use Permit for a Tennis Court at 39
Crest Road West.
The City Manager displayed the site development plan for 39
Crest Road West, indicating the proposed location of the tennis
court. The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission, after
conducting two public hearings and a field site investigation, took
action to approve, by a vote of 3-2, the request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a tennis court. There were adjacent residents who
expressed opposition to the proposed tennis court. Subsequent to the
Planning Commission's approval, the City Council received a report
from the Planning Commission, at which time both of the adjacent
property owners appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.
Thus, the City Council set the matter for a public hearing. The
Council then heard this matter at their last meeting, took public
testimony, and continued the public hearing to allow the
Councilmembers to conduct an on-site investigation of the proposed
location of the tennis court. The Councilmembers conducted their
on-site investigation on April 13, 1988, and Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh made an on-site investigation separately.
- 5 -
CJ
123,
Mayor Swanson asked the City Manager if the Council had
received all correspondence regarding this matter. The City Manager
reported that, in addition to the letters already received, the
Council had before them two additional letters: one which was
received over the weekend from the applicant, Mr. Yu -Ping Liu; and
one from the prospective owners of one of the neighboring properties
that had previously submitted a letter of opposition, Mr. and Mrs.
Krauthamer.
Mayor Swanson reopened the public hearing and invited public
testimony.
Mr. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West, stated that it's his
belief that the reason this particular request has created some
controversy is due to the fact that the site is a non -conforming lot
and, therefore, necessitates that the location of the tennis court be
only 90 feet from his residence and 75 feet from the other adjacent
residence. Mr. Hawkins explained that his family's main concern is
that of noise. He said that, previously, conditions restricting use
were discussed, however, he understood that the Council had concerns
00 regarding imposing restrictions which might be difficult or expensive
to enforce later on. Mr. Hawkins agreed that enforcement of nuisance
complaints can be difficult. Although the Lius are very responsible
-� neighbors, subsequent owners of the property may not be as thoughtful
and responsible. Mr. Hawkins said that the City, should it be
inclined to grant the request, should be willing to bear some element
Q of responsibility if things were not to go well down the road. Mr.
Hawkins went on to say that, if the Council chooses to approve the
request, the following conditions should be imposed: the hours of
play be restricted to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; the court be
used for tennis purposes only; and, the tennis court be screened in
such a way as to mitigate the noise pollution. Mr. Hawkins also
stated that he understands that the prospective buyers of the 011a
property -have the same concerns with regard to noise abatement, and
that they have an additional concern regarding drainage since the
tennis court would basically be a subterranean court. Mr. Hawkins
remarked that his backyard is his only sanctuary since his front yard
faces onto Crest Road, which gets a majority of the traffic through
the City.
Mr. Yu -Ping Liu, 39 Crest Road West, addressed the Council and
,explained that playing tennis is his relaxation and therapy from
work. Although the lot is not a big lot, they complied with all the
conditions and restrictions of Ordinance 215 and the policy
memorandum of March 1980. With regard to the noise issue, Mr. Liu
explained that the tennis court, per se, is not what makes noise, it
is the people that use the tennis court that create the noise. Mr.
Liu said that he agrees to do whatever is necessary to mitigate the
noise. With regard to the water drainage, Mr. Liu stated that he is
confident that South Bay Engineering would design the appropriate
drainage to allow the water to drain from the court properly.
Dr. Paul Rubinstein, 25 Eastfield Drive, commented that he has
a tennis court and that he has two neighbors that also have tennis
courts less than 90 feet from his home, and he has never had a
problem with noise pollution. He stated that he occasionally hears
them playing tennis but that it has never been a problem.
Mrs. Chi -Ling Liu, 39 Crest Road West, explained that the
reason that the Hawkins' house is only 90 feet from the proposed
tennis court is because the Hawkins were granted a Variance to
encroach 25 feet into the side yard setback.
There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Swanson
closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pernell asked the City Manager if the last
statement, made by Mrs. Liu, was correct. The City Manager reported
that the Hawkins were granted a Variance to encroach into the side
yard setback. The City Manager wasn't sure as to the exact amount of
124
encroachment but he thought it was about 15 feet. Mayor Pro Tem
Murdock asked if the Variance was granted for a residence addition
and not for an accessory use. The City Manager confirmed that the
Variance was for a residence addition.
Mayor Swanson explained to the applicants that whatever the
Council decides is the final decision.
Mayor Pro Tern Murdock commented that this is a very difficult
decision. However, after viewing the lot and the proximity of the
proposed tennis court, not only to the surrounding properties but
also to the house itself, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock stated that she could
not vote in favor of the request because she feels it is an
inappropriate use of the lot. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock went on to say
that, unfortunately, not every lot lends itself to the type of
development that is being proposed, and what may be appropriate on
one lot may not be appropriate on another lot. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock
said that the Council has an obligation to consider the noise factor
as it concerns the surrounding neighbors, and there is no way that
that can be controlled in a practical manner. As stated by Mr.
Hawkins, there are several non -conforming properties in this vicinity
and, due to that fact, the proximity to the other properties makes
the tennis court an incompatible use.
Councilman Pernell commented that this is also made difficult
because of the temperament of the applicant, which is very agreeable
and responsible. However, after viewing the lot, Councilman Pernell
also felt that the construction of the tennis court would be
overdeveloping that particular site, and the Council must give
preference to residential uses as opposed to accessory uses. In
conclusion, Councilman Pernell agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Murdock.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh asked that the record show that she
attended a field site investigation on Friday morning, April 15,
1988. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh commented that she, too, feels that
the applicant has been very cooperative. However, due to the fact
that the adjoining lots are non -conforming, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
felt that to add to the use in this particular area would not be
compatible with the best interests of the community.
Mayor Swanson said that she had given this a great deal of
thought, and that the Lius are extraordinary neighbors and extremely
nice people. However, the Mayor agreed with the other
Councilmembers. She stated that when looking at the proposed plans
it looked rather tight, and after viewing the proposed project°
on-site, it looked even tighter. The proposed tennis court would be
extremely close to the applicants''living area besides being close to
the adjacent neighbors. The Mayor stated that, after viewing the
proposed project, the site development was not in keeping with the
rural character of the City. Therefore, she is also opposed to this
requested use.
Mayor Swanson explained that the Council must look at the
development of a parcel in a way that would be in the best interests
of the community.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that staff return to the Council
with a Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 355.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA
Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to address the
City Council on any matter which was not on the agenda. The Mayor
explained that anyone wishing to address the Council would be allowed
five minutes to, present their concerns, and that no action would be
taken at this meeting. It would, however, be placed on a future
agenda if the Council feels it is necessary. There were no comments
from the audience.
- 7 -
i
125-
PROPOSED
25 -
PROPOSED ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON AND VIEWS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
The City Manager explained that the Council has before them a
recommendation from the Planning Commission of an ordinance for the
purpose of preserving and restoring views from private property
within the City of Rolling Hills. The process of drafting the
proposed view ordinance, at the Planning Commission level, took
several months to complete. The process began last summer and over
the past several months the Planning Commission has held a series of
public hearings for the purpose of receiving public testimony from
members of the community as it relates to the development of an
ordinance for the purpose of allowing residents to have their views
either preserved or restored. Over this same period of time, the
Planning Commission worked through several drafts of an ordinance
which would accomplish this purpose.
The City Manager explained that the Council actually has two
proposed ordinances before them. One is entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON AND VIEWS
00 FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY", which is the ordinance that was approved by
the Planning Commission and was forwarded to the City Council. The
LO other proposed ordinance also reflects the action of the Planning
Commission in a somewhat different way. It is entitled "AN ORDINANCE
m OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULATING VIEWS AND PROVIDING FOR
ABATEMENT OF VIEW IMPAIRMENTS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS
Q MUNICIPAL CODE". This ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney
and incorporates the spirit and the intent of the ordinance of the
Planning Commission. The City Council has the authority and the
perogative to adopt the latter ordinance without having to refer it
back to the Planning Commission. Also, if the City Council wishes to
modify the proposed ordinance they have the perogative of directing
staff to implement the modifications and return to the Council with
the amended ordinance.
Mayor Swanson asked if the Council had copies of all the
letters that were written to the Planning Commission and City Council
by residents regarding this matter. The City Manager stated that the
Council did have a copy of all the letters that had been received and
that the majority of letters express support of an ordinance that
allows for neighbors to attempt to resolve their differences.
However, there are at least two letters that express a different
point of view as it relates to view impairment.
Mayor Swanson asked that the City Attorney brief the Council
and audience on the issues that he outlined in his version.
The City Attorney explained that he originally prepared an
ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission. And, after
the Commission took testimony and considered the matter, it
recommended its own version of the ordinance, which contained some
differences from that which the City Attorney had prepared. Since
then, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance that the Planning
Commission approved, and had some concerns about some of its
provisions. Therefore, the City Attorney explained that he
essentially took from it those things which were new which had not
been in his original ordinance, incorporated them into his original
version, and prepared a new version. The main differences between
his version and the one recommended by the Planning Commission, with
the exception of some language differences, are as follows:
1) The City Attorney removed some definitions which were
unnecessary.
2) The Planning Commission ordinance makes it a misdemeanor
to maintain vegetation that unreasonably obstructs
views. The ordinance prepared by the City Attorney does
not; it simply makes it a misdemeanor to not comply with
the ultimate determination of the final decision making
body respecting the view impairment, which would be the
City Council.
The City Attorney stated that it is his opinion that if
it's a misdemeanor to obstruct views unreasonably then
126
one could resort to the criminal remedy first without
going through the administrative process and that that
would be a mistake in view of the fact that it would be
very difficult to place these matters into a court to
determine what is and is not an unreasonable view
obstruction, particularly in a criminal context.
Therefore, the City Attorney deleted this from his
ordinance and simply made it a violation of the ordinance
to fail to comply with the final decision of the City
Council with respect to a view impairment complaint.
3) Another important distinction is that the Planning
Commission ordinance contains essentially a four tier
process. The first tier calls for informal conciliation
by the View Impairment Committee, to be followed by a
formal hearing by the Committee, to be followed by
arbitration by an arbitrator, and then to be followed by
a potential appeal to the City Council.
The City Attorney explained that he had several
reservations about this procedure. First, it seemed to
be unwise to have the Committee serving both as a
mediator and then, secondarily, as a body conducting a
public hearing.
Also, since the arbitration is not a final and binding
arbitration it is nothing more than a mediation or
conciliation, which seems to be a repeat of the first
tier of the process only that it is done by a single
individual rather than the Committee. This redundancy
seemed unnecessary and time consuming.
The City Attorney, accordingly, adopted a three tier
process. The first tier is a conciliation or mediation
process, which would be conducted by a single mediator
who could be selected in any way that the Council
desired. This person would take the initial crack at
attempting to solve the problem. If the mediation
failed, the matter could go to a public hearing before
the Committee, in much the same way that the Planning
Commission hears matters. And, finally, if that fails to
resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the parties,
it could be appealed to the City Council for final
decision.
This process is simpler, less time consuming and it also
utilizes all of the concepts of the Planning Commission
ordinance. That is to say, it includes a mediation or
conciliation aspect, it includes a hearing before an
appointed committee, and it ultimately results in an
appeal to the City Council.
4) The City Attorney made some minor changes with respect to
findings that would be made in a determination of whether
or not an obstruction should be removed or modified.
The City Attorney stated that that pretty well summarizes the
major differences between the two ordinances.
Mayor Swanson asked the City Attorney to clarify paragraph "B"
under Section 8.32.060, on page 4 of his ordinance.
The City Attorney explained that the ordinance makes it the
responsibility of the complainant to pay the cost of the removal,
abatement, or modification, as the case may be, of the obstructing
vegetation, which is the same as the Planning Commission's version,
except for certain extenuating circumstances which are indicated in
paragraph "D". The way it is set up is that the complainant gets
three bids from licensed and qualified contractors and then provides
a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. The owner of the
vegetation may select that low bid, in which case payment has already
- 9 -
0
12.7
been made in that amount. However, if the owner of the vegetation
decides to select some other contractor and it costs more than that
low bid, then the owner of the vegetation would be responsible for
the difference. 1.,.
There being no further questions from the Council, Mayor
Swanson opened the public hearing to receive testimony regarding this
matter. The Mayor requested that each speaker limit their remarks to
about 3 minutes.
Councilman Pernell asked that the more pertinent elements of
the ordinance be pointed out. He stated further that it is his.
understanding that the Council is really only considering one
ordinance, that which was approved by the Planning Commission, and
that the City Attorney had simply made an alternate recommendation.
The City Manager explained that the City Attorney, Mr. Michael
Jenkins, had incorporated the ordinance that the Planning Commission
submitted to the Council into a format that allows it to be adopted
more readily by reciting code sections and things of that nature.
00 The other substantive changes that have been made may change the way
V -j the Planning Commission ordinance was originally written but it does
LO not really change the intent of their ordinance, which was to create
a process for prosecuting these complaints.
CO Mayor Swanson said it is her understanding that the City
Q Attorney's ordinance cleans up the ordinance that was submitted by
the Planning Commission. It takes out unnecessary definitions that
are already in the code, and it simplifies the process by making it a
three tier instead of a four tier procedure.
Councilman Pernell asked the City Attorney if the Planning
Commission had had the advantage of his advice. Mr. Jenkins stated
that when they initially started the process, the Planning Commission
had a version of his ordinance before them. The differences between
that original ordinance and the ordinance as it now appears before
the City Council are: (1) that the City Attorney added definitions
for a "tree" and a "hedge", which are also in the Planning Commission
ordinance; (2) the City Attorney established a committee on trees and
views, which is identical to what the Planning Commission has
proposed in their ordinance; (3) the procedure for abatement is
identical to the procedure that the City Attorney originally
submitted to the Planning Commission; (4) the findings are identical;
(5) the implementation of the restorative action, that is the
allocation of costs and the method of performing the work, is
identical; (6) there are some changes in paragraph "D" pertaining to
those circumstances underwhich the City, be it either the Committee
or the Council, on appeal, would reallocate that cost, possibly, back
to the owner; and, finally, (7) the section on desirable and
undesirable trees, with respect to the preparation of lists, was
taken from the Planning Commission ordinance.
In all other respects, the ordinance is that which was given
to the Planning Commission originally. The City Attorney commented
that the differences between the two ordinances are largely
stylistic, except for those substantive issues which he has already
raised.
Councilman Pernell commented that he felt it was important to
be aware that the Planning Commission did have the benefit of legal
counsel and, for whatever reasons, decided to draft their own
ordinance. This, Councilman Pernell remarked, carried a lot of
weight, in his opinion.
The City Attorney addressed Mayor Swanson's question
concerning the responsibility of the owner to implement an order of
abatement. He explained that in both ordinances the complainant is
obligated to pay for the cost of the abatement of the view
obstruction. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation is at the
expense of the owner of the property. This means that once the
abatement is accomplished it is the responsibility of the owner,
thereafter, to continue to maintain and trim the vegetation in order
to keep it in the same manner so as to eliminate the view
obstruction. Mayor Swanson asked if this would apply to all
- 10 -
its
subsequent owners, and the City Attorney and Mayor Pro Tem Murdock
stated that it would be recorded against the property, and would,
therefore, apply to any owner of the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock stated that she shares Councilman
Pernell's concern with respect to the Planning Commission reviewing
the ordinance being proposed by the City Attorney, and asked if the
Council were to adopt first reading of this ordinance tonight, could
the Planning Commission review the ordinance and submit their
recommendations before the second reading. The City Attorney replied
that that would certainly be acceptable.
Mayor Swanson asked the City Manager to comment on how the
Planning Commission arrived at their proposed ordinance since he
attends the Planning Commission meetings. The City Manager stated
that it was not a matter of rejecting the recommendations of the City
Attorney, it was more a matter of expanding upon the recommendations
of the City Attorney. The ordinance proposed by the Planning
Commission proposes a lengthier process. The Planning Commission had
a desire to look at other cities to see what other cities were doing
regarding this issue and, in the process of creating this ordinance,
they took elements of several ordinances from throughout the State of
California and incorporated them into this ordinance.
The City Attorney stated there was one change to the original
Planning Commission ordinance, which was of a legal nature. The
original Planning Commission ordinance called for binding
arbitration; it did not call for an appeal to the City Council. The
City Attorney said that, from a legal point of view, it was his
opinion that that would not be appropriate. Therefore, the City
Manager added the appeal process to the Planning Commission
ordinance, thereby, creating that fourth tier. Prior to this
addition, the process only went up to binding arbitration and there
was no appeal to the City Council.
Mrs. Cathy Manning, 14 Crest Road West, suggested that a
strong distinction be made between preservation of a view and
restoration of a view. Mayor Swanson asked Mrs. Manning if she had a
recommendation. Mrs. Manning said her recommendation would be that
language be put into the ordinance stating that only under the most
severe circumstances would restoration of a view be considered.
However, preservation of a view is a definite right of any property
owner. She would basically like to see the restoration of views
eliminated from the ordinance. Mrs. Manning also said that when a
complainant gets three bids from contractors, they should be only
contractors that are approved by the City.
Mr. Don Gales, 19 Middleridge Lane, spoke with reference to
the definition of "View" in the Planning Commission ordinance, and
suggested that "the Palos Verdes hills" be added to the list of
scenes, immediately following "city lights", the reason being that
the Palos Verdes hills are an impressive view in themselves.
Councilman Pernell reminded Mr. Gales of the letter that he
had written to the Planning Commission in support of the proposed
view ordinance and asked Mr. Gales to expand upon this. Councilman
Pernell informed the audience that Mr. Gales is an authority of the
flora of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and has authored a book entitled
"A Handbook of Wildflowers, Weeds, Wildlife and Weather of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula".
Mr. Gales explained that most of the large trees and
obstructions were planted a long time ago. Mr. Gales said that he
believes a majority of the problems are caused by quick -fix
landscaping of residences, in an effort to provide some screening and
instant mature landscaping, without any thought given to maintenance
of the vegetation, and which eventually becomes overgrown and needs
to be thinned out.
Dr. Arthur Adesko, 3 Georgeff Road, asked the City Attorney if
this ordinance would supersede any prior agreement between
neighbors. The City Attorney said that it is entirely possible that
two neighbors could have a binding agreement that would supersede the
effect of this ordinance, or could have some court judgement between
L
OEM
them that might supersede the application of this ordinance.
However, it wouldn't necessarily preclude the application of the
ordinance by some other complainant. The City Attorney said that
this is a difficult question and one that he would want to give more
thought to. Generally speaking, people cannot agree between
themselves to violate the law. But, the law here does not impose any
obligation until after parties go through an entire process. If the
parties choose not to go through that process, i.e., if they have
some understanding that is binding on the both of them, the City
Attorney is not persuaded that that would be a problem.
Dr. Adesko asked if this ordinance would supersede any
agreement that they inherited, and the City Attorney said he couldn't
answer that question without knowing more information.
Councilman Pernell asked what would happen if a third party
filed a complaint on a property owner that had a binding agreement
with another neighbor. The City Attorney said that no agreement
would bind the third party.
00 Mrs. Shirley Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive, suggested that the
r' wording in Section 10 of the Planning Commission ordinance be changed
LO to read, "... shall be the responsibility of the owner of the
-3 property, or subsectuent owners of the oroberty, which causes...".
CO The City Attorney reiterated that this decision would be
Q recorded, in perpetuity, against the property and not the
individual. However, the City Attorney agreed that the language
could be strengthened for clarification purposes.
Mrs. Tyndall also commented that, the word "significantly" in
the definition of "View Impairment" is vague and very subjective.
The City Attorney commented that in his original version he
attempted to quantify it somewhat, however, the Planning Commission,
for whatever reason, did not use it. The City Manager stated that
the Planning Commission used a broader definition because it could
differ from one property to the next.
In conclusion, Mrs. Tyndall said that she is very much in
favor of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Paul Grubs, 1 Hackamore Road, agreed with the first
speaker. He said that very serious thought should be given to the
age of the trees with respect to view restoration. Mr. Grubs said
that if a tree has existed for forty years, obviously people have
moved in and have been faced with the view impairment from the very
beginning. Trees, within about a ten year period, reach a height
which is noticeable. If people are concerned about a view
obstruction, they should speak up at that time, not forty years down
the road. Mr. Grubs said that there are many trees that will die if
cut off below 15 feet and on a forty year old tree there is usually
very little vegetation below 20 feet. Therefore, Mr. Grubs felt very
strongly that the age of the tree should be taken into consideration
before any view restoration is performed.
Mr. Grubs also stated that he felt that this matter should be
brought to a vote because it is so significant and will have such an
impact as to what will happen to the City.
Mayor Swanson asked Mr. Grubs if he had difficulty with the
proposed ordinance, and Mr. Grubs stated that he did have some
problems with the ordinance.
Councilman Pernell pointed out to Mr. Grubs that the proposed
ordinance does not mandate a height limit of 15 feet.
Mr. Grubs commented that his neighbor had their tree trimmed
and laced, and it grew back fuller than before. He stated that,
generally, when trees are trimmed or laced they grow much more
prolific than before. He said in many instances, thinning has
ultimately created a worse view impairment problem.
- 12 -
130
Councilman Pernell discussed with Mr. Grubs his feelings
regarding the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Grubs indicated that he is
opposed to the ordinance and has a definite sensitivity regarding
this matter.
Mrs. Phyllis Walker Hutchinson, 29 Eastfield Drive, discussed
tree trimming and its effects. She explained that certain trees when
trimmed, in particular, Pines, grow even more abundantly than before
or form another trunk and eventually create more of a view
impairment. Mrs. Hutchinson said that we also need to be wary of
people coming onto someone's property without permission to top or
thin trees. In spite of this, Mrs. Hutchinson said that she is in
favor of the ordinance. She said its her feeling that something has
to be done to make it equal for everyone. She also commented that
many people that talk about view restoration and preservation should
look to their own property to make it more viewful for other people.
Mayor Swanson welcomed Mr. Stringfellow, President of the
Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association.
Mr. Jim Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane, said that many people plant
trees and don't really notice them growing large until, after many
years, they are literally living in a forest. Mr. Brogdon said that
he has told his neighbors that if he has any trees that bother them,
to come see him about it and he would either have the obstructing
tree removed or thinned, which he has done in the past.
Mayor Swanson asked Mr. Brogdon if this is an indication that
he is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Brogdon said that to the
contrary, he is not in favor of the ordinance because he feels it is
an impossible situation. He said that he doesn't feel there is a
solution to this problem.
Mr. Bill Stringfellow, 85 Crest Road East, said that the
Members of the Board of the Rolling Hills Association have discussed
this matter and agree that something -ha's to be done. Also, Mr.
Stringfellow commented that he understands Mrs. Manning's concerns,
however, he believes that the Committee on Views would use good
judgement and would not completely strip the Manning's trees and
leave their home exposed. Mr. Stringfellow said that something needs
to be done to restore, in a responsible manner, views that have been
lost.
Mr. Stringfellow posed a potential problem, that being who is
responsible for the death of.a tree caused by trimming, as a result
of a favorable decision of a view impairment complaint. He said that
he can envision law suits over this type of issue.
Mr. Stringfellow stated that he is very much in favor of the
ordinance, and wished the Council good luck in their deliberations.
He said that this matter is very difficult because it is very
subjective.
Councilman Pernell asked Mr. Stringfellow if the Association
charges the Landscape Committee with any responsibilities with regard
to view preservation. Mr. Stringfellow said that he did not know the
answer to that question. Councilman Pernell said that maybe it would
be possible to consider that as a possibility.
Mr. Margrave, 55 Saddleback Road, stated that he is in favor
of the goals of the ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, a view
is a concrete thing. Mr. Margrave also stated that years ago he
worked with the Landscape Committee, and they did take into
consideration views. Mr. Margrave feels that there are too many
trees and that removal of the trees would be the best solution.
Mr. Ron Warmbier, 86 Crest Road East, expressed his
appreciation to the Council for their efforts in this matter. Mr.
Warmbier had some procedural questions for the City Attorney. With
respect to Section 10, Payment of Cost of Correction, Mr. Warmbier
asked who would make the determination, subsequent to a favorable
decision, of view impairment, as to how often or when vegetation would
have to be trimmed to preserve the view after abatement had been
- 13 -
L
131
achieved. Mr. Warmbier suggested that this be an annual evaluation.
The City Manager explained that the purpose of the decision is to
provide a plan for the future': sWlatever is necessary to restore and
preserve the view, once it is determined what that restored view is
going to be, would carry through to any future restoration which
would be similar to the original decision. The City Attorney also
commented that the vigilance of neighbors and of the complainant is
the only means of enforcement. Other than that, there is no
enforcing capacity in the City at this point in time.
Mr. Warmbier then asked a question with regard to the initial,
enforcement process. He said that in many instances positions have
solidified over the years and an amicable solution is not possible.
He wanted to know what happens when an owner of the obstructing trees
refuses to allow anyone onto his/her property to remove or trim the
offensive tree(s). The City Attorney stated that that is a
potentially `troublesome situation. Mr. Jenkins said that it might
become necessary to get a court order. The City Attorney said that
one thing that is not included in the ordinance and which could be
added, is the notion of not only declaring it a misdemeanor but also
00 making it a nuisance. Thus, if the property owner did not comply
withthe order, it would give the City legal authority to enter upon
LD the property.
Mr. Warmbier also stated that it appears that this ordinance
m only gives legal standing to the property owner as the complainant.
Q However, Mr. Warmbier said that there are many common vistas
throughout the City that are shared by the residents of the community
and which have obstructed views. The City Attorney stated that the
ordinance specifically restricts "view impairment" to views from
residences. Mr. Warmbier said that he assumes that was the
legislative intent. Councilman Pernell stated that he does not share
that viewpoint. Councilman Pernell said that he doesn't feel it was
necessarily the legislative intent. He said that this may just be an
oversight. Councilman Pernell continued to say that he feels that
this is a very valid point. Councilman Pernell remarked that there
are many pleasant vistas as one drives along Crest Road, that he can
see from some of the plantings, are eventually going to be threatened
and obscured. Councilman Pernell feels that a provision for this
type of situation should be included in the ordinance. Mayor Swanson
confirmed with Mr. Warmbier that this was also his concern, and Mr.
Warmbier indicated that, indeed, this was a concern of his.
There were no further comments from the audience. Councilman
Pernell suggested that the public hearing be continued because he
feels there needs to be a lot more discussion on this matter.
Therefore, the Mayor ordered that the public hearing be continued.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock said that the public hearing has raised
some questions that are important to consider. She suggested that if
any of the Councilmembers have questions or concerns they express
them now or express them in writing to the City Manager to pass along
to the City Attorney.
Councilman Pernell also requested that, in the future, the
Chairman or a Member of the Planning Commission attend the public
hearings to, when necessary, explain their intent or the origin of
some of their, thoughts.
Councilman Pernell said that it appears that this is something
that almost everyone wants to do something about but whatever is done
is not a permanent solution. It is a recurring problem, similar to
weed abatement. Councilman Pernell stated that he would like to know
the experience of other cities that have an ordinance of this type in
place. Councilman Pernell also suggested to the City Attorney that
consideration be given to moving the process up a little bit.
Currently, this whole process is started with a written complaint.
That very act in itself may tend to harden some relationships between
neighbors. If there were some way of being advised that such a
complaint were being contemplated, prior to the time it were to
become part of the official record, it might be helpful to neighbors
in resolving the problem.
- 14 -
132
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh shared Councilman Pernell's
concerns. She would like more verbal input from the Planning
Commission Chairman.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh would also like another public
hearing that is well noticed in hopes of receiving a wider range of
opinions expressed at the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Swanson stated that she had reviewed both versions of
the proposed ordinance, that of the Planning Commission and that of
the City Attorney, and feels that they are basically the same with
the exception of the mediation procedure, the 4 -tier process versus
the 3 -tier process. Mayor Swanson prefers the 3 -tier process
because, in any case, it will be a difficult procedure and adding one
more step makes it that much more tedious. She also favors the idea
of having the City Council make the final decision in the event of an
appeal.
In both versions, the composition of the Committee is
discussed and both versions suggest that a landscape architect be a
member of the Committee. Mayor Swanson questioned whether such a
highly skilled individual is necessary. Maybe it would be sufficient
to have someone with landscape training but not necessarily an
architect. Usually, landscape architects are costly.
Both versions gave many reasons for trimming trees. Another
important reason, and one that the Mayor would like the City Attorney
to consider, is the erosion of soil around a tree that could
potentially occur if a tree were to become so large that it pulls
earth with it and topples after a heavy rain or watering. At times,
a property owner may not be cognizant of such a problem but a
neighbor might be if such a tree were to fall onto their property.
Thus, such a concern should merit serious consideration for trimming
or removal.
The Council discussed whether to continue the public hearing
to the first or second meeting in May since Councilman Pernell
indicated that he would not be able to attend the first meeting in
May.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock felt that this matter should be on the
agenda as many times as is necessary, to encourage participation from
the community.
It was decided to continue the public hearing to the next
regular Council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to remain for
the reorganization of the City Council. The Mayor explained that it
is customary every year to change Mayors, and that this position is
basically rotated amongst the Council.
Mayor Swanson reviewed her year as Mayor and the
accomplishments of the past year. During the past year, a firm was
hired to do the preliminary sewer study and the study has been
completed, although, the process is continuing. The Council has been
successful in receiving funding from the Federal Government for the
Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study in the Flying
Triangle for the purpose of studying the South Peninsula -landslides.
The Council has started the process of possibly adopting a view
preservation ordinance. A Wildlife Preservation Committee was
appointed and it is felt that this committee will play a very
important role for the whole community. Procedure charts for
building, zoning, planning, and subdivision applications have begun
to be developed. The City is in good fiscal standing. An ordinance
regulating the construction of tennis courts was revised and
- 15 -
133
adopted. The Council hopes to receive a letter from the cable
television company soon, indicating the availability of cable
television in the community. All in,,all, it has been a very busy and
successful year.
Mayor Swanson moved that Councilwoman Murdock be elected
Mayor. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and Councilman Pernell seconded the
motion. There being no objections, it was so ordered. Mayor Murdock
was congratulated and seated.
Former Mayor Swanson presented Mayor Murdock with a bouquet of
oses and with a blank City plaque to be carried at all times to any
[functions at which the Mayor would be representing the City and might
be caught off guard by an unannounced honoree.
Mayor Murdock presented former Mayor Swanson with a bouquet of
roses and with a framed City plaque, engraved to express the
Council's appreciation and commemorating former Mayor Swanson's term
of office.
co Mayor Murdock entertained a motion to elect Councilwoman
T+eeuwenburgh as Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilman Pernell so moved.
Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously. Mayor Murdock presented Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh with
?a bouquet of roses.
Q Mayor Murdock recessed the meeting and invited the members of
the audience to join the Council and staff at a brief reception.
MEETING RECONVENED
Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
TRAFFIC COMMISSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
This is an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS REGARDING COMMISSIONS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE".
Mayor Murdock asked the City Manager to comment on this
ordinance.
The City Manager explained that this ordinance is intended to
modify the powers and duties of the Advisory Traffic Commission. The
ordinance states that the Advisory Traffic Commission shall have the
power and duty to:
A. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding
traffic regulations, signs and devices, on -street parking
controls, lane striping and driveway curb cuts.
B. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding
administration and enforcement of traffic regulations.
This ordinance expands the powers and duties of the Advisory
Traffic Commission, to more accurately reflect the kinds of
responsibilities that they have had occasion to deal with in the
past.
Councilman Pernell moved that the proposed ordinance entitled
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGARDING COMMISSION AND
AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE", be introduced. Mayor Pro
Tem Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Status of Plannina Commission ADDointment
Mayor Murdock reported that she and Councilwoman Swanson have
been interviewing the applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy.
- 16 -
134
They will submit, for the Council's review, a recommendation.
Mayor Murdock asked that the Councilmembers make their comments,
regarding the recommendation, to the City Manager.
Councilman Pernell remarked that in the event that a single
recommendation were made and there happened to be a strong objection,
the sub -committee would have to submit another recommendation. Thus,
to avoid this possibility, Councilman Pernell suggested that the
sub -committee submit their top three applicants and circulate those
names for review and comment, afterwhich, the sub -committee would
make a recommendation.
Mayor Murdock agreed with this suggestion and indicated that
that would be the method for selection.
Councilwoman Swanson said that the sub -committee interviewed
all ten applicants, and that there were many very capable
individuals. She remarked that it is encouraging to see so many
qualified applicants.
Councilman Pernell
Councilman Pernell asked to be excused from the next meeting
of the City Council.
Councilwoman Swanson
At the last Mayors' meeting, Mayor Schwarzmann, Rolling Hills
Estates, reported that their city formed a committee which might
compliment our City's Wildlife Preservation Committee. Mayor
Schwarzmann wanted to put the chairman of their committee in touch
with the City. Mr. Bill Ailor then contacted former Mayor Swanson
and discussed their committee, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy.
It is more or less a parallel organization to the Nature
Conservancy. They are trying to become a non-profit organization.
Their responsibilities are a little different from our Wildlife
Preservation Committee's responsibilities. Their committee basically
protects open -space. However, they will be requesting to appear
before the City Council within the next two months and report on
their committee.
Santa Monica Bav Estuary Proaram
Councilwoman Swanson reported that at the Sanitation District
Board of Directors meeting, the Board unanimously approved supporting
the Santa Monica Bay as the national estuary. This support would
give a signal to the EPA to include the Santa Monica Bay in the
national estuaries program. Now it appears that Congress would like
the cities to do likewise.
E. Del Smith Aareement
Mayor Murdock commented on the City's continued relationship
with Del Smith. The Mayor asked whether, as a Council, any
determinations should be made and discussions instituted as to what
the future policy will be.
The City Manager said that staff would recommend that the
City's relationship with Del Smith be on an annual retainer basis and
that, if it became necessary, depending upon a particular piece of
legislation and a need to have an advocate in Washington, the City
only pay on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than to carry a monthly
stipend.
Councilman Pernell asked what the fiscal impact would be of
the City Manager's recommendation. The City Manager indicated it
would cost approximately $2,400 per year, or $200 per month.
- 17 -
00
LO
D
m
a
:1
Councilman Pernell stated.,'that he would be opposed to this
recommendation in the absence of -any clear-cut issues that could even
be remotely forecast.
Mayor Murdock ordered that this matter be put on the agenda
for the next meeting, for Council discussion and determination.
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Councilwoman Swanson informed the Council that at the
Sanitation District Board meeting, approval was also given to set
aside one day (yet to be determined) at the Palos Verdes landfill,
for disposal of- hazardous waste materials. A list of hazardous
materials will be attached to the information that will be mailed
out. The difficulty is that each individual would have to deposit
the materials themselves and it could not be a City project because
the City would need to have a permit.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m., to Monday, May 9,
1988, at 7:30 p.m.
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
- 18 -